rowing propulsive mechanism based on rower...

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

ROWING PROPULSIVE MECHANISM BASED ON ROWER

BIOMECHANICS AND BLADE HYDRODYNAMICS

AB AZIZ BIN MOHD YUSOF

i

.

ROWING PROPULSIVE MECHANISM BASED ON ROWER

BIOMECHANICS AND BLADE HYDRODYNAMICS

NOVEMBER 2017

Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (Biomedical Engineering)

AB AZIZ BIN MOHD YUSOF

iii

Specially dedicated to:

My beloved father (Mohd Yusof bin Ayob).

My beloved mother (Rahimah binti Abdul Rahman)

My beloved wife (Nurul Hazuwa binti Muhamad Ramli)

For your endless support and encouragement

DEDICATION

iv

Alhamdullilah, all praises to Allah S.W.T who gives me graces of

opportunity, physical and mentally strength and valuable time to complete this

study. A special dedication of appreciation is given to my supervisors, Dr

Muhammad Noor Harun, Dr Ardiansyah Syahrom and Prof. Dr Abdul Hafidz bin

Hj. Omar from Sports Innovation Technology Conter (SITC), for help, guide, idea

and advices through the data collection, computational and experimental study and

thesis preparation. I would like to thank to Abdul Malik hj. Abdul Ghani, President

of PERDAMA for the trustworthy and opportunity given to make use of the

facilities and equipment to achieve my objectives of the study. I highly

acknowledge for his and association expertise in rowing. I would like to extend my

deepest gratitude to all my family and family in law members for your

understanding and providing consistence support, patience and love. Finally, I

would like to express my gratitude to all MEDITEG and SITC members for their

assistance over the last few year. It is pleasure to me to work with all of you and the

experience that I gain made me a better person. I would like to thank to my

wonderful friends of their friendship, encouragement and assistance, particularly

for Abdul Hakim, Nor Syahiran, Amir Putra, Abdul Hadi, Fakhrizal Azmy, Hadafi

Fitri, Rabiatul Adibah. Last but not least, special thank for the Government of

Malaysia through the KPM MyBrain15 scheme for the scholarship and granted

research grant to smooth the study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

v

Rower biomechanics, stroke style, and hydrodynamic of the blade are

among the important factors which influence rowing performance. Deeper

understanding of these aspects will help the rower and rowing fraternity to decide

the best rowing style and blade model in order to perform better. There are three

objectives outlined in this study. The first objective was to evaluate the coupling

mechanism between rower biomechanics and blade hydrodynamic, using rowing

dynamic simulator. The second objective was to assess the fluid flow behaviour

around the blade by using Computational Fluid Dynamic method (CFD). The third

objective was to compare two different stroke styles which focused on the rower

leg and trunk. During the experimental work, the rowers rowed and accelerated the

boat. An average handle force of 512 N, and a blade hydrodynamic force of 231 N

were obtained by using the strain gauge sensor. From the result, the oar mechanism

was in agreement with the first class lever of 45% mechanical advantage. CFD

analysis was validated and had good agreement with experimental result with 8.3%

error. Blade was identified to work based on drag-induced propulsive and the fluid

flow behaviour was dominated by leading edge vortex (LEV). The highest

hydrodynamic force was generated by asymmetrical type of Fat blade followed by

asymmetrical type of Big blade and symmetrical type of Macon blade with a peak

force of 347 N, 307 N and 231 N respectively. Finally, two types of rowing style

emphasized on the leg and trunk were compared and evaluated. The leg-typed

rowing style was 17% better in increasing the handle force higher as compared to

the trunk-typed rowing style. In conclusion, the study explored the connection

between rower-oar-boat. Rowing performance showed a 28% enhancement of boat

acceleration by the use of leg-type rowing style. Further enhancement of

performance was achieved via the asymmetrical type of Fat blade, which increased

the hydrodynamic force up to 51%.

ABSTRACT

vi

Biomekanik pendayung, gaya strok, dan hidrodinamik bilah adalah antara

faktor-faktor penting yang mempengaruhi prestasi mendayung. Pemahaman yang

mendalam tentang aspek-aspek ini membantu pendayung dan komuniti mendayung

menentukan gaya mendayung yang terbaik dan model bilah yang sesuai bagi

meningkatkan prestasi perlumbaan. Terdapat tiga objektif telah digariskan dalam

kajian ini. Objektif pertama, menilai mekanisme gabungan antara biomekanik

pendayung dan hidrodinamik bilah menggunakan simulator dinamik mendayung.

Objektif kedua, menaksir aliran pergerakan air di sekitar bilah menggunakan

pengiraan analisis dinamik bendalir (CFD). Objektif ketiga, membandingkan antara

dua gaya strok yang berbeza yang memfokuskan pada kaki dan batang belakang.

Semasa eksperimen dijalankan, pendayung mendayung dan memecutkan bot.

Purata daya pemegang yang terhasil adalah 512 N, dan daya hidrodinamik purata

231 N diperoleh menggunakan alat pengukur terikan. Daripada keputusan ini,

mekanisme dayung didapati mematuhi konsep tuil kelas pertama dengan 45%

kelebihan mekanikal. Analisa CFD disahkan menyamai kaedah eksperimen dengan

peratus ralat sebanyak 8.3%. Bilah didapati bekerja berdasarkan dorongan seretan

dan sifat aliran dipengaruhi oleh pusaran pinggir hadapan (LEV). Daya

hidrodinamik yang paling tinggi dihasilkan oleh bilah jenis tidak simetri Fat diikuti

dengan bilah jenis tidak simetri Big dan bilah jenis simetri Macon sebanyak 347 N,

307 N dan 231 N daya puncak yang terhasil. Dua gaya dayungan yang menekankan

pada kaki dan belakang badan telah dibandingkan dan dinilai. Gaya dayungan yang

memfokuskan pada kaki didapati lebih berkesan dalam meningkatkan daya

pemegang sebanyak 17% lebih tinggi berbanding dengan gaya dayungan belakang

badan. Kesimpulannya, kajian ini menerokai hubungan antara pendayung-oar-bot.

Prestasi mendayung menunjukkan peningkatan 28% pecutan bot menggunakan

gaya dayungan kaki. Peningkatan prestasi selanjutnya dicapai mengunakan bilah

tidak simetri Fat, yang mana meningkatkan daya hidrodinamik sehingga 51%.

ABSTRAK

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION Error! Bookmark not defined.

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xiii

LIST OF FIGURES xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xix

LIST OF SYMBOLS xx

LIST OF APPENDICES xxiii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of study 1

1.2 Problem statement 3

1.3 Objectives of the study 4

1.4 Scope of the study 4

1.5 Significant of the study 5

1.6 Thesis organisation 7

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

viii

2.1 Introduction 8

2.2 Rowing overview 8

2.2.1 Rowing racing strategies 10

2.2.2 Rowing stroke phase 10

2.2.3 Free body diagram of rowing 12

2.2.4 Rowing oar mechanism 14

2.3 Biomechanics of rower 17

2.3.1 Rower force profile 18

2.3.2 Research gaps for biomechanics of rower 22

2.4 Hydrodynamic of the blade during stroke 24

2.4.1 Blade hydrodynamic force 24

2.4.2 Hydrodynamic force components 26

2.4.3 Lift and drag force generated on the blade 27

2.4.4 Force coefficient of the blade 30

2.4.5 Blade design and features 32

2.4.6 Research gaps for biomechanics of rower 33

2.5 Numerical method of blade hydrodynamic force 35

2.6 Computational fluid dynamic of oar blade 38

2.7 Summary 39

3 MATERIAL AND METHOD 40

3.1 Introduction 40

3.2 Operational frame work 41

3.3 Coupling mechanism between biomechanics and

hydrodynamics of rowing 43

3.3.1 Problem formulation 43

3.3.2 Experimental approach 43

ix

3.3.2.1 Description of experimental device 44

3.3.2.2 Description of measurement device 45

3.3.2.3 Finite element analysis of the oar

bending for strain gauge placement

location 47

3.3.2.4 Data acquisition system 49

3.3.2.5 Calibration of the strain gauge 50

3.3.2.6 Sensor accurancy and repetability test 51

3.3.3 Experimental procedure 53

3.3.4 Oar efficiency 54

3.4 Hydrodynamics of the blade during the drive phase

of the start 55


3.4.2 Experimental data collection 55

3.4.3 Computational fluid dynamic analysis 56

3.4.4 CFD analysis of domain model configuration

effect 57

3.4.4.1 The effect of domain size to normal

force of the blade 57

3.4.4.2 The effect of shaft attachement to

normal force of the blade 58

3.4.4.3 The effect of free surface to normal


3.4.5 Computatinal Fluid Dynamic model 60

3.4.6 Boundary condition of CFD analysis 62

3.4.7 Mesh convergence study 64

3.5 Analysis of blade design features 65


3.5.2 Computational fluid dynamic approach 65

x

3.5.3 Convergence study of quasi-static analysis 66

3.5.4 Boundary condition for CFD and validation 67

3.5.5 Full scale blade model 69

3.5.6 Blade design features 70

3.6 Analysis of body segment emphasis rowing styles 71


3.6.2 Experimantal subject 72

3.6.3 Kinetic and kinematic setup for assesing

rowing style 73

3.6.4 Testing procedure 73

3.6.5 Video analysis of rower kinematic 75

3.6.6 Data post-processing and statistical procedure 76

3.6.7 Computational fluid dynamic analysis 77

3.7 Summary 78

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: COUPLING MECHANISM

BETWEEN BIOMECHANICS AND HYDRODYNAMICS OF

ROWING 79

4.1 Introduction 79

4.2 FEA of oar bending for strain placementlocation 79

4.3 Calibration of the strain gauge sensor 81

4.4 Sensor accuracy and repetability test 82

4.5 Rower kinematic during the drive phase of the stroke 84

4.6 Force profile of the drive phase of the stroke 86

4.7 Speed profile of the oar and boat 89

4.8 Combination between biomechanics and

hydrodynamics of rowing 43

4.9 Summary 93

xi

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: HYDRODYNAMIC OF THE

BLADE DURING THE DRIVE PHASE OF THE

START STROKE 94

5.1 Introduction 94

5.2 Computational simulation of dynamically moving blade 94

5.2.1 CFD model configuration effect on the normal


5.2.1.1 The effect of domain size tonormal


5.2.1.2 The effect of shaft attachement model

on the normal force of the blade 96

5.2.1.3 The effect of free surface on normal

of the blade 97


5.2.3 Computational fluid dynamic validation 99

5.2.4 Blade projection path of the drive phase 100

5.2.5 Pressure contour of the blade 101

5.2.6 Leading edge vortex (LEV) around the blade 103

5.2.7 Normal, shear and hydrodynamic force of the

drive phase 105

5.2.8 Lift and drag force of the drive phase 107

5.3 Computational simulation of blade design features under

quasi-static condition 109


5.3.2 Computational fluid dynamic validation 110

5.3.3 Full scale blade model 112

5.3.4 Analysis of blade design features 114

5.4 Summary 119

xii

6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ANALYSIS OF BODY

SEGMENT EMPHASIS ROWING STYLES 120

6.1 Introduction 120

6.2 Comparison between leg and trunk emphasis 120

6.3 Kinematic of the rower 124

6.4 Boat and oar kinematic during the stroke 127

6.5 Blade projection path and pressure generated 129

6.6 Summary 132

7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 133

7.1 Conclusion 133

7.2 Future recomendation 135

REFERENCES 136

Appendices A-E 151-161

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO.

TITLE PAGE

2.1 The force profiles database applied by the rower during

drive 21

2.2 Database of hydrodynamic force generated on the blade 29

2.3 Database of the force coefficient related to the blade

hydrodynamic 31

3.1 The detail of blade design features used 62

3.2 Features categories, blade design features and notation

of the study 70

3.3 The blade design features used in the study 71

4.1 Data of the compression strain on the inboard shaft for

test and re-test 83

4.2 The Pearson correlations test result for test-retest 83

5.1 Detail of convergent study 99

5.2 Result of the hydrodynamic parameters of the blade 116

7.1 The list of limitation and future recommendation of the

rowing study 135

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO.

TITLE PAGE

1.1 Thesis organization chart 7

2.1 Rowing stroke cycle 11

2.2 Force and velocity act on the rowing system 12

2.3 The resultant hydrodynamic force acting during stroke 13

2.4 Blade force components act on the rowing oar 14

2.5 Components and parts of rowing oar 15

2.6 Oar installation on the rigging, force applied, oar

motion and force acting 16

2.7 Rowing rowing styles practically applied by the rower 18

2.8 Rower force profile applied during drive 20

2.9 The different between static, dynamic and total pressure 25

2.10 Force components acting on the submerged blade

during the drive phase due to the relative speed of oar

angular speed and boat translation speed 26

3.1 Project flow chart 41

3.2 Experimental equipment used in the study; (a) complete

setup of rowing equipment which consists of the

simplified boat, rail, and water tank. (b) model of the

rail and how the simplified boat was placed.and (c)

model of the simplified boat that replicated the real

model of the rowing boat 45

3.3 Sensors setup and locations used in the study; a) sensors

placement on the outboard side, b) sensor placement on

the inboard side c) Simplified rowing boat on the rail

xv

and (d) Encoder placement on the simplified boat to

read the boat velocity. 46

3.4 Sensor setup and connection 47

3.5 Oar model and boundary condition assigned for the

FEA study 48

3.6 Quarter bridge 1-single active stain gauge 49

3.7 Strain gauge calibration setup 51

3.8 Encoder setup for angle accuracy test. 52

3.9 Rower row during testing and blade positioned by

submerging in water during the test 53

3.10 Experimental setup for the study 54

3.11 Boat translation and oar angular speed obtained from

the experiment that used as the input for CFD 56

3.12 CFD domain size used; (a) original size of CFD model

according to the water tank (b) smaller size of the CFD

model. 58

3.13 Blade model for CFD study (a) Blade with shaft

attachment model (b) Blade without shaft attachment

model Domain size effect. 59

3.14 Free surface of water during CFD study 59

3.15 Isometric view of the fluid domain and boundary

condition of the CFD 61

3.16 Blade model used is CFD analysis where θs is

submerged angle a) Macon blade and it is position in

water b) Big blade and it is position in water c) Fat

blade and it is position in water 61

3.17 Hydrodynamic force components acting on the blade

during the drive, where Fn is normal force, Ft is shear

force, Fh is hydrodynamic force, Fx is force in X

direction and Fy is force in y direction, Fd is drag force,

Fl is lift force, Vr is relative speed, Vo is boat translation

and θC is the catch angle. 63

3.18 CFD model meshed using hexa element which

contained fluid domain and blade model. 64

xvi

3.19 Fluid and rectangular model meshed with hexa element

provided by the software 66

3.20 Boundary condition for validation purpose; (a) plan

view, and (b) side view. 67

3.21 Comparison between quarter and full scale blade 67

3.22 CFD model and boundary condition of the investigation

using the full scale blade 69

3.23 Body segment measurements 72

3.24 Body emphasis rowing style as referred to V.

Kleshnev(2006) (a) Leg emphasis stroke style (b)

Trunk emphasis stroke style 74

3.25 Rower position during the start stroke of the study 74

3.26 Body segment velocity analyses using Kinovea

software 76

3.27 CFD model for the rowing style 77

4.1 Strain distribution on the oar due to the force applied 80

4.2 Compression strain happen on the oar shaft due to the

force applied 80

4.3 The strain-force graph for the strain gauge calibration. 82

4.4 a) Rower equipped with the marker for video analysis

b) Kinematic of rower for the first stroke 85

4.5 Handle and blade force act on the oar 86

4.6 Angular speed of the oar during the start and rowing

boat velocity profile 90

5.1 Comparison between normal force of the blade for big

CFD domain size and small CFD domain size. 96

5.2 Comparison between normal force of the blade for the

blade model with shaft attachment and without

attachment 97

5.3 Comparison between normal force of the blade for CFD

study which considered the free surface effect and CFD

study ignore the free surface effect 98

xvii

5.4 Plotted total pressure acting on the blade at the 0.0 to

0.4 m of distance which show by the dot line for the

different mesh sizes 98

5.5 Comparison between normal force obtained using

experimental approach and computational study for

Macon blade model. 100

5.6 The blade projection path during drive phase 101

5.7 Pressure distribution on the blade during the stroke (a)

Blades projection during the 1.4 s drive phase for

Macon, Big blade and Fat blade (b) Pressure

distribution at the peak force or 0.6 s drive time. 102

5.8 LEV circulation around the blade (a) LEV circulation of

Macon blade (b) LEV circulation of Big blade (c) LEV

circulation of Fat blade (d) Distance between LEV

circulation and tip of Macon blade (e) Distance

between LEV circulation and tip of Big blade (f)

Distance between LEV circulation and tip of Fat blade 104

5.9 Plotted graph of force component acting on the blade;

(a) comparison between experimental and CFD result of

the normal force of Macon blade model and CFD result

of the normal force acting on the Big and Fat blade, (b)

shear force acting on the blade models and (c)

hydrodynamic force acting on the blade models 105

5.10 Force acting on the blade according to the boat direction

(a) Drag force, Fx (b) Lift force, Fy 108

5.11 Mesh convergence study of the model 110

5.12 Comparison of current simulation study with the

previous CFD and experimental measurement; (a) blade

drag coefficient and (b) blade lift coefficient. 111

5.13 Comparison between; (a) drag coefficient of the blades

and (b) lift coefficient of the blades 112

5.14 Pressure distributions on the blade; (a-c) Macon blade,

Big blade and Fat blade positioned at 45 degrees of

xviii

angle of attack and (d-e) Macon blade, Big blade and

Fat blade positioned at 90 degrees of angle of attack. 113

5.15 Fluid streamline around the blade and pressure

distribution on the blade; (a)-(c) blade aspect ratio,

respectively for AR1, AR2 and AR3, (d)-(f) blade

curvature respectively for C1, C2 and C3, (g)-(j) Blade

profile respectively for BP1, BP2, BP3 and BP4 and

(k) Blade positioning for IB. 115

6.1 Comparison between mean value and standard deviation

of parameters for leg and trunk emphasis rowing style 121

6.2 Body segment speed during stroke; (a) at early stroke

and (b) approximate near to finish 125

6.3 Comparison between speed obtained from encoder

sensor and speed obtained from video analysis using

Kinovea software. 126

6.4 (a) Leg emphasized rowing style (b)Trunk emphasized

of the rowing style 128

6.5 Blade projection path during stroke; (a) blade projection

path of the leg emphasized of the rowing style and (b)

blade projection path of the trunk emphasized of the

rowing stye 130

6.6 Total pressure counter around the blade during the drive

phase for leg and trunk emphasis 131

xix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3D - Three dimensional

CFD - Computational fluid dynamic

FEA - Finite Element Analysis

FISA - International Rowing Federation

FSI - Fluid structure interaction

ISAK - International standards for anthropometric assessment

LEV - Leading edge vortex

NI - National Instruments

RANS - Reynold average Navier-Stoke

SD - Standard deviation

SST - Menter's Shear Stress Transport

xx

LIST OF SYMBOLS

∇ - Nable operator

Ao - Projection area

Cd - Drag coefficient

Cl - Lift coefficient

Cp - Hydrodynamic coefficient

d - Outboard length

dr - Degree of freedom

f - External force

Fd - Drag Force

FD - Skin drag force

Fl - Lift force

Fn - Normal force

FP - Hydrodynamic force

Fr - Handle force

FT - Boat thrust force

Ft - Shear force

Fx - Force in x direction

Fy - Force in y direction

Fx - Force in x direction

Fy - Force in y direction

g - Gravity

h - Depth of fluid

h - Parallel axis to blade surface

I - Identity matrix

K - Number of pulse

xxi

k-ω - k-omega turbulence model

l - Inboard length

lb - Travelling boat distance

mboat - Mass boat

mcrew - Mass crew

�� - Mass flow rate of water

n - Normal axis to blade surface

nr - Number of rower

p - Fluid pressure

P - Significant level

Pdynamic - Dynamic pressure

Pstatic - Static pressure

Ptotal - Total pressure

q - The distance of the vector to the axis of blade rotation

r - Correlation coefficient

R - Electrical Resistance

t - Time

T - Transpose for matrix calculation

tt - t-value of t-test

�́��́ - Reynold stress tensor

v - Fluid velocity v = (v1,v2,v3)

- Kinematic viscosity

v́ - Turbulence velocity fluctuating.

v� - Average fluid velocity

v � - Mean velocity component in xi direction

Vboat - Velocity boat

Vcrew - Velocity crew

VExt - External voltage

vf - Normal component of water velocity

vfs - Normal component of free surface velocity

v - Mean velocity component in xj direction

vr - Relative speed

xxii

Xboat - X boat axis

xi - xi direction

xj - xj direction

Yboat - Y boat axis

�� - Oar efficiency

θt - Oar accuracy test angle

θ - Oar swing angle for calibration

θ� - Angle between Fp to boat direction

θ� � - Oar angular speed

θ� � - Oar angular rotate the fulcrum

θc - Catch angle

θs - Submerge angle

� - Fluid dynamic viscosity

ρ - Fluid density

σn - Strain of blade shaft

σr - Strain of handle shaft

τij - Fluid shear stress

ω - Rotational rate

xxiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

TITLE PAGE

A Rowing dynamic engineering drawing 150

B Oar blade engineering drawing 152

C Star CCM+ sumarry report 155

D Publication 160

E SPSS Statistical data 161

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Rowing is one of the oldest Olympic sports. The first rowing event is held

in 1900 Olympic games [1, 2]. Basically, the rowing boat is propelled by using the

oar where the blade is submerged, and the handle is pulled to generate the

hydrodynamic force. The performance is depending on the use of the human's

ability and sport equipment. Both of aspects should match properly to successfully

competing for the highest level such as World competition or Olympic Games.

A clear understanding of the rower biomechanics is very well related to

kinetic, kinematic, physiological, and anthropometrics of the rower and it brings

major attention to the sport community. By altering the function and utilization of

the body segment, it enables the responsible party to cope with demand of the sport

performance.

The stroke of the rowing involves the coordination of legs, trunk and arms

segments at certain sequences which are categorized as a cyclic type of sport [3, 4].

The stroke is divided into four phases which are catch, drive, finish and recovery

phase [4, 5].

2

Rowing style involving body position of the catch, timing and body

segment emphasis [6]. Rowing style and boat performance can be evaluated using

the handle force profile generated during the stroke. Currently, researchers begin to

explore the definition of the ideal force profile to enhance the performance and

maximise the utilization of rower biomechanics [5]. Normally the highest work

generate by the rower produces the fastest boat speeds. However as there is a

limitation on the physiological of the rower’s body, thus the most suitable rowing

style needs in depth exploration.

The hydrodynamics force is used to overcome the boat drag and thereby

accelerate the boat. Skillful rowing technique enhances the hydrodynamic force and

improves the boat speed. In addition, the use of advance technology in producing

better equipment accelerates the enhancement process. In the competition, there are

three types of commonly used blade: Macon, Big blade and Fat blade [7-9]. Thus, a

proper understanding of the fluid flow around the blade is necessary to improve the

blade performance. Meanwhile, the blade slips problem and the inefficiency in

blade propulsive are among the main problem which affects the rowing

performance [10, 11]. Further assessment of each blade’s features towards the

hydrodynamic force deepens the understanding of the fluid mechanics of the blade

propulsive.

Selection of the best rowing style and the blade design are the important

factor that contribute to the increase of rowing performance. Varieties of blade

design and rowing styles used by the rower contribute to variety of rower kinematic

and hydrodynamic performance of the blade. Rower kinematic can be assessed by

using video analysis where interested body segments are emphasised. Meanwhile,

the hydrodynamic force of the blade associated fluid flows around the blade of the

different rowing styles can be extracted by using computational study due to the

limitations of the experimental study.

3

1.2 Problem statement

Rower forces profile, physiological and anthropometry of the rower, fluid

dynamic around the blade and optimization of blade design have been explored by

the previous researchers [5, 9, 12-16]. However, coupling mechanism between

biomechanics of the rower and hydrodynamic of the blade during the stroke

received less attention. Biomechanics is interested in figuring out how the rower

converts his physiological capacity in order to propel the boat by using

hydrodynamic force. Even so, most of these studies that focus on the blade have

simplified the rowing stroke mechanism which causes the analysis to be regarded

as not optimum. The deficiency is happening due to the complexity of the rowing

system that leads the analysis of biomechanics and hydrodynamics as undefined.

Moreover, most of the researchers tend to analyse the biomechanics’ aspect directly

with the boat speed by neglecting the hydrodynamics effect on the oar blade or the

other way around.

To date, there is limited research related to the fluid flow around the oar

blade that considering the factor human power [7, 9, 17-19]. A study of this topic

would elucidate the unsteady fluid mechanics around the oar blade of the drive

phases. In the competition, there are three types of commonly used blades.

However, the issue has been raised and the question needs to be answered is how

the blade really works. It is lift-induce or drag-induced mechanism and how the

force is generated [4, 9, 20, 21]. This issue deserves to be questioned since there are

several studies focused on the blade but the conclusions gained are different.

Besides that, this study also allows further investigation into areas for optimization

and improvement. The blade designs have been changed several times, however its

performance has not been tested for a detailed qualitative assessment of what would

constitute as an effective design and utilization.

Besides that, the biomechanics evaluation of the rower stroke is limited and

the related studies do not cover the effect of the stroke styles to the rowing

performance. Usually on-the-water evaluation, a method known as ‘seat racing’ is

4

used [22-24]. It is done by using a boat of four where the boats are lined up to race

against each other. After the established and fixed distance, the coach would

measure the disparity between the two boats based on the racing time. Through the

method, technique assessment applied is not precise because the evaluation

depends on the coach‘s experience and judgment is made based on the visual

consideration. Previously V. Kleshnev (2006), reported the four rowing styles are

classified according to the body position, timing and body emphasis [6]. This is a

good approach to enhance the rowing biomechanics. However, the advantages of

each style towards the performance are not reported which leaves a big question.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The objectives of the study are outline as follow:

1. To evaluate the coupling mechanism between rower biomechanics and the

blade hydrodynamics

2. To assess the fluid flow around the blade and the hydrodynamic force generated

on existing blade designs by using Computational Fluid Dynamic analysis.

3. To compare between two different stroke styles which focusing on the rower

leg and trunk.

1.4 Scope of the study

In investigating the biomechanics and the hydrodynamics of the rowing, a

dynamic rowing simulator is used to replicate the actual rowing mechanics under

control condition. The study is carried out using two main methods, experimental

and computational study. The experimental study is used to obtain the rower handle

and blade force, kinematics, angular speed of the oar and the boat translation speed.

5

The oar angular speed and the boat translation speed are then assigned as the input

into the computational study. The scope of the study is simplified as the following

list:

a) Boat motion is controlled using rail and allowed to move in one degree of

freedom

b) Biomechanics of rowing is focused on the single rower for the sweep type oar

and boat.

c) Rower kinematics is captured using video and analysed using motion

software

d) Biomechanics of the rower is fixed to the handle force profile and rower

kinematic for each rowing style.

e) Blade designs and features are only focused on commercial blade model:

Macon blade, Big blade and Fat blade.

f) Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) and experimental study are used in order

to assess the effect of the rowing styles to hydrodynamic of the blade.

g) The study is focused on the start of the race which the data of the first three

strokes are captured.

1.5 Significant of the study

There are several studies reported in force profile, biomechanics influenced

factor, rower kinematic, flow around the blade, and blade design towards the

performance [7, 12, 13, 22, 25, 26]. However, the studies of those aspects are done

separately although the real rowing system combined all of them together as one

system. Thus there are missing information especially in the study coupling

mechanism between rower and oar blade need to be taken into account, thus a new

comprehensive study is necessary to deepen our knowledge about rowing.

6

The existing blade designs used in competition indicates the improvement

in performance especially for Macon blade and Big blade. However, there is no

paper reported on Fat blade. In previous study, it is stated that under the quasi-static

condition, Big blade is assessed to improve the performance about 2% higher

compared to Macon blade [7]. Unfortunately, there are only a few studies

comparing the performance of each blade design specifically under the dynamic

condition in which hydrodynamic force is generated due to the relative speed

between the oar and boat. Therefore the computational simulation applied in the

study improvises the previous study by providing the hydrodynamic force of the

blade which moving dynamically due to rower stroke of the drives phase.

The rowing style can influence the rowing performance through the

optimization of the rower biomechanics [6, 13]. The study explores the differences

in rowing style and contributes to deepen the knowledge to enhance the

performance by helping the rower to maximise the power produced and minimise

the energy lose [27, 28].

Finally, the development of the method and analysis bring the rowing to

great progress in the biomechanics as well as hydrodynamic aspect. The coach

does not need to solely rely on his or her eyes only as has been applied on the

training session [24]. Besides that, the introduction of the proposed study would

help to bring this sport technology to the new levels in sport engineering. Through

further research, a definition of the ideal force profile, as well as other parameters,

may transpire. The efforts of the rowing crew could be reviewed after the

assessment session. The method could also provide the rower and coach with

important technical information. Besides, monitoring stroke timing and force

generated. Optimization of force application also could be analysed and the rower

could inspect his or her performance for each of the stroke.

7

1.6 Thesis organization

This thesis consists of seven chapters (Figure 1.1). Chapter 1 is an

introduction which consists of the background study, problem statement, the

objective of the study, the scope of the study, significant of the study and thesis

organization. Chapter 2 contains literature review which reviews all papers related

to the study and place the research work in the right boarder. Chapter 3 elaborates

the method used in the study and it is organised into three main subtopics. The first

subtopic is experimental study used to evaluate the coupling mechanism between

biomechanics and hydrodynamics of the rowing. The second subtopic is followed

by a computational study which replicated the real mechanics of blade propulsive

and investigates the blade features based on quasi-static condition. The third

subtopic elaborates the method used to asses rowing styles. An elaborated

assessment of the coupling mechanism analysis is delivered on Chapter 4.

Meanwhile, in chapter 5, it elucidates the topic about blade propulsive mechanics.

Chapter 6 then focuses more on the rowing styles which expands the previous two

chapters in detail. Chapter 7 is the final chapter which describes the conclusion of

the study other than discussing some limitation and recommendations for further

improvement the future work.

Figure 1.1: Thesis organization chart.

136

REFERENCES

1. B. P. De Coubertin, “The Meeting of the Olympian Games,” The North

American Review, vol. 170, no. 523, pp. 802-811, 1900.

2. C. M. Hernández, "History of Olympic Rowing in Cuba." p. 100.

3. V. Kleshnev, “Segments contribution to the stroke length and rower power.

Higher percentage of the trunk power helps to achieve higher boat speed,”

Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 2, no. 2, February, 2002.

4. N. Caplan, A. Coppel, and T. Gardner, “A review of propulsive mechanisms

in rowing,” Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P:

Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2010.

5. A. Baudouin, and D. Hawkins, “A biomechanical review of factors affecting

rowing performance,” British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 36, no. 6, pp.

396-402, December 1, 2002, 2002.

6. V. Kleshnev, “Rowing styles,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 6 no.

60, March, 2006.

7. N. Caplan, and T. N. Gardner, “A fluid dynamic investigation of the Big

Blade and Macon oar blade designs in rowing propulsion,” Journal of Sports

Sciences, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 643-650, 2007.

8. T. G. A. Coppel, N. Caplan, D. Hargreaves, “Oar blade force coefficients and

a mathematical model rowing,” 27 International Conference on

Biomechanics in Sports (2009), 2009.

9. N. Caplan, and T. N. Gardner, “Optimization of oar blade design for

improved performance in rowing,” Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 25, no.

13, pp. 1471-1478, 2007/11/01, 2007.

10. V. Kleshnev, "Propulsive efficiency of rowing." pp. 224-228.

11. K. Affeld, K. Schichl, and A. Ziemann, “Assessment of rowing efficiency,”

International journal of sports medicine, vol. 14, pp. S39-41, 1993.

137

12. A. Baudouin, and D. Hawkins, “Investigation of biomechanical factors

affecting rowing performance,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 37, no. 7, pp.

969-976, 2004.

13. R. S. Barrett, and J. M. Manning, “Relationships between rigging set-up,

anthropometry, physical capacity, rowing kinematics and rowing

performance,” Sports biomechanics / International Society of Biomechanics

in Sports, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 221-235, 2004/07//, 2004.

14. M. M. Doyle, A. Lyttle, and B. Elliott, “Comparison of force-related

performance indicators between heavyweight and lightweight rowers,” Sports

Biomechanics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 178-192, 2010.

15. A. Sliasas, and S. Tullis, “The dynamic flow behaviour of an oar blade in

motion using a hydrodynamics-based shell-velocity-coupled model of a

rowing stroke,” Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part

P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 9-24,

2010.

16. A. Coppel, T. Gardner, N. Caplan, and D. Hargreaves, "Numerical Modelling

of the Flow Around Rowing Oar Blades (P71)," The Engineering of Sport 7,

pp. 353-361: Springer, 2008.

17. A. Coppel, T. N. Gardner, N. Caplan, and D. Hargreaves, “Simulating the

fluid dynamic behaviour of oar blades in competition rowing,” Proceedings

of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports

Engineering and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 25-35, 2010.

18. A. Sliasas, and S. Tullis, “Numerical modelling of rowing blade

hydrodynamics,” Sports Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 31-40, 2009/12/01,

2009.

19. A. Leroyer, S. Barré, J.-M. Kobus, and M. Visonneau, “Experimental and

numerical investigations of the flow around an oar blade,” Journal of Marine

Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-15, 2008.

20. D. Kim, and M. Gharib, “Characteristics of vortex formation and thrust

performance in drag-based paddling propulsion,” Journal of Experimental

Biology, vol. 214, no. 13, pp. 2283-2291, 2011.

21. T. Kinoshita, M. Miyashita, H. Kobayashi, and T. Hino, "Rowing Velocity

Prediction Program with Estimating Hydrodynamic Load Acting on an Oar

138

Blade," Bio-mechanisms of Swimming and Flying, N. Kato and S. Kamimura,

eds., pp. 345-359: Springer Japan, 2008.

22. K. C. Pilgeram, and M. J. Delwiche, “Device for on-the-water measurement

of rowing output,” Sports Engineering, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 165-174, 2006.

23. J. Lok, and M. De Rond, “On the plasticity of institutions: Containing and

restoring practice breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club,”

Academy of Management Journal, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 185-207, 2013.

24. Y. Koutedakis, “The role of physiological assessment in team selection with

special reference to rowing,” British journal of sports medicine, vol. 23, no.

1, pp. 51, 1989.

25. A. Leroyer, S. Barré, J.-M. Kobus, and M. Visonneau, “Influence of free

surface, unsteadiness and viscous effects on oar blade hydrodynamic loads,”

Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1287-1298, 2010/10/01, 2010.

26. P. N. Page, and D. Hawkins, “A real-time biomechanical feedback system for

training rowers,” Sports Engineering, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 67-79, 2003.

27. V. Kleshnev, “Trends of the race strategy over the last 10 years in different

placeholders; Prognosis till 2008. Optimal race strategy.,” Rowing

Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 2, no. 19, 2002.

28. V. Kleshnev, “Racing strategy in rowing during Sydney Olympic Games,”

Australian rowing, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 20-23, 2001.

29. B. Laschowski, V. Nolte, M. Adamovsky, and R. Alexander, “The effects of

oar-shaft stiffness and length on rowing biomechanics,” Proceedings of The

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering

and Technology, pp. 1754337115582121, 2015.

30. A. Greidanus, R. Delfos, and J. Westerweel, “Rowing faster by surface

treatment,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 34, pp. 361-366, 2012.

31. R. Smith, "The relationship between seat movement and boat acceleration

during sculling."

32. J. M. Steinacker, W. Lormes, M. Lehmann, and D. Altenburg, “Training of

rowers before world championships,” Medicine and science in sports and

exercise, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1158-1163, 1998.

33. H. Perkin, “Teaching the nations how to play: sport and society in the British

empire and Commonwealth,” The International Journal of the History of

Sport, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 145-155, 1989.

139

34. R. Sport, and D. Paintworks, “FISA Rule Book.”

35. U. R. R. Committee, “Rules of Rowing,” Princeton, NJ: The United States

Rowing Association, 2008.

36. V. Kleshnev, “Analysis of the race start,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter,

vol. 9, no. 1, 2009.

37. T. S. Nilsen, T. Daigneault, and M. Smith, Basic rowing physiology: FISA

Development Commission, 1990.

38. V. Kleshnev, “Stroke rate vs. distance in rowing during the Sydney

Olympics,” Australian Institute of Sport Australian Rowing, vol. 24(2), , pp.

18-22, April 2001, 2001.

39. V. Kleshnev, “The effect of stroke rate on biomechanical parameters and

efficiency of rowing,” XIV symposium ISBS, proceeding, Lisboa, Portugal,

pp. 321-325, 1996.

40. F. Akça, “Prediction of rowing ergometer performance from functional

anaerobic power, strength and anthropometric components,” Journal of

human kinetics, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 133-142, 2014.

41. V. Kleshnev, “Race strategy on the last Worlds; Race tactics in the finalist

and countries specifics. Marker on the oar shaft and blade depth,” Rowing

Biomechanics Newsletter, vol. 1, no. 10, 2001.

42. N. H. Secher, “Physiological and biomechanical aspects of rowing,” Sports

medicine, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 24-42, 1993.

43. V. Kleshnev, “Moving the Rowers: biomechanical background,” Australian

Rowing, Carine, WA, vol. 25, pp. 16-19, 2002.

44. A. Sliasas, and S. Tullis, “Modelling the effect of oar shaft bending during

the rowing stroke,” Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers,

Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, vol. 225, no. 4, pp.

265-270, 2011.

45. V. Kleshnev, “Segments contribution to the stroke length and rowing power.

Higher percentage of trunk powerb help to achieve higher boat speed,”

Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter, vol. 2, no. 2, February, 2002.

46. “Oar Length,” http://www.concept2.com/oars/oar-options/length.

47. V. Kleshnev, “Biomechanics of rowing,” Rowing Faster. Second edition.

Serious training for serious rowers. Human Kinetics, pp. 105-121, 2011.

140

48. C. L. Rao, J. Lakshinarashiman, R. Sethuraman, and S. M. Sivakumar,

Engineering Mechanics: Statics and Dynamics: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2003.

49. N. Sclater, and N. P. Chironis, Mechanisms and mechanical devices

sourcebook: McGraw-Hill New York, 2001.

50. J. McLester, and P. S. Pierre, Applied biomechanics: concepts and

connections: Nelson Education, 2007.

51. V. Nolte, “Shorter oars are more effective,” Journal of applied biomechanics,

vol. 25, no. 1, 2009.

52. F. K. Fuss, S. Fundel, Y. Weizman, and R. M. Smith, “Smart Oar Blade for

Hydrodynamic Analysis of Rowing,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 147, pp.

735-740, 2016.

53. D. Cabrera, A. Ruina, and V. Kleshnev, “A simple 1+ dimensional model of

rowing mimics observed forces and motions,” Human movement science, vol.

25, no. 2, pp. 192-220, 2006.

54. D. Cabrera, and A. Ruina, “Propulsive efficiency of rowing oars,” Submitted

to Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2006.

55. D. Pendergast, P. Zamparo, P. E. di Prampero, C. Capelli, P. Cerretelli, A.

Termin, A. Craig, D. Bushnell, D. Paschke, and J. Mollendorf, “Energy

balance of human locomotion in water,” European Journal of Applied

Physiology, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 377-386, 2003.

56. W. C. Atkinson, “Oar blade efficiency,” Retrieved Feb. 1, 2005 from the

World Wide Web:http://www.atkinsopht.com/row/rowrpage.htm . 2004.

57. R. M. Alexander, “Mechanics of animal movement,” Current biology, vol.

15, no. 16, pp. R616-R619, 2005.

58. H. Hatze, “The meaning of the term ‘biomechanics’,” Journal of


59. V. Nolte, “Introduction to the biomechanics of rowing,” FISA coach, vol. 2,

no. 1, pp. 1-6, 1991.

60. V. Kleshnev, “Experimental data on comparison of rowing on-water with

Concept-II and RowPerfect ergometers.,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters,

vol. 5, no. 3, 2005.

61. C. Soper, and P. A. Hume, “Towards an ideal rowing technique for

performance,” Sports Medicine, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 825-848, 2004.

141

62. B. Sanderson, and W. Martindale, “Towards optimizing rowing technique,”

Medicine and science in sports and exercise, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 454-468,

1986.

63. L. Formaggia, A. Mola, N. Parolini, and M. Pischiutta, “A three-dimensional

model for the dynamics and hydrodynamics of rowing boats,” Proceedings of

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports

Engineering and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 51-61, March 1, 2010,

2010.

64. V. Kleshnev, “Power in rowing,” International research in sports

biomechanics, pp. 224-230, 2002.

65. M. N. Macrossan, and N. W. Macrossan, Back-splash in rowing-shell

propulsion, 2006.

66. V. Kleshnev, “Vertical seat force; Lift force and the height of the handle and

foot-stretcher. Optimal height of the handle; Push foot-stretcher with toes at

catch; Horizontal drive.,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 2, no. 5,

2002.

67. V. Kleshnev, “Force and power in rowing,” Rowing Biomechanics

Newsletters, vol. 14, no. 156, 2014.

68. R. M. Smith, and C. Loschner, “Biomechanics feedback for rowing,” Journal

of Sports Sciences, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 783-791, 2002.

69. V. Kleshnev, “Vertical Handle Force,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters,

vol. 13, no. 143, 2013.

70. V. Kleshnev, “Comparison of measurements of the force at the oar handle

and at the gate or pin,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 10, no. 108,

2010.

71. P. Schwanitz, “Applying biomechanics to improve rowing performance,”

FISA coach, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1-7, 1991.

72. P. Pudlo, A. Pinti, and F. Lepoutre, “Experimental laboratory apparatus to

analyze kinematics and 3D kinetics in rowing,” Sports Engineering, vol. 8,

no. 1, pp. 39-46, 2005.

73. T. Černe, R. Kamnik, and M. Munih, “The measurement setup for real-time

biomechanical analysis of rowing on an ergometer,” Measurement, vol. 44,

no. 10, pp. 1819-1827, 2011.

142

74. M. N. Macrossan, and M. Kamphorst, Computational study of the Froude

number effects on the flow around a rowing blade, 2009.

75. A. L. Coppel, “A computional fluid dynamic investigation of rowing oar

blades,” PHD Thesis, The University of Birminghan, School of Sport and

Exercise Sciences, 2010.

76. S. Pati, A Textbook on Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines: Tata

McGraw Hill, 2012.

77. W. Benenson, J. W. Harris, H. Stöcker, and H. Lutz, Handbook of physics:

Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.

78. R. W. Johnson, Handbook of fluid dynamics: Crc Press, 2016.

79. R. Smith, and C. Draper, "Quantitative characteristics of coxless pair-oar

rowing ".

80. R. Smith, and C. Draper, "Controlling yaw in a pair rowing boat."

81. A. Sliasas, and S. Tullis, “A hydrodynamics-based model of a rowing stroke

simulating effects of drag and lift on oar blade efficiency for various cant

angles,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2857-2862, 2010.

82. S. Barre, Kobus, J-M, “Comparison between common models of forces on

oar blades and forces measured by towing tank tests,” Proceedings of the


and Technology, , vol. vol. 224, pp. 37-50, Mar 2010 2010.

83. S. Barré, and J. Kobus, “Comparison between common models of forces on

oar blades and forces measured by towing tank tests,” Proceedings of The


and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 37-50, 2010.

84. I. H. Abbott, Theory of wing sections, including a summary of airfoil data:

Courier Dover Publications, 1959.

85. N. Caplan, and T. Gardner, “A mathematical model of the oar blade–water

interaction in rowing,” Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1025-

1034, 2007.

86. T. Chacón Rebollo, and R. Lewandowski, "Incompressible Navier–Stokes

Equations," Mathematical and Numerical Foundations of Turbulence Models

and Applications, pp. 7-44, New York, NY: Springer New York, 2014.

143

87. M. A. Olshanskii, and A. Reusken, “Navier--Stokes Equations in Rotation

Form: A Robust Multigrid Solver for the Velocity Problem,” SIAM Journal

on Scientific Computing, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1683-1706, 2002.

88. R. Bhaskaran, and L. Collins, “Introduction to CFD basics,” Cornell

University-Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 2002.

89. J. Anderson Jr, "Governing equations of fluid dynamics," Computational

fluid dynamics, pp. 15-51: Springer, 2009.

90. R. Adrian, K. Christensen, and Z.-C. Liu, “Analysis and interpretation of

instantaneous turbulent velocity fields,” Experiments in Fluids, vol. 29, no. 3,

pp. 275-290, 2000.

91. G. Cowles, and L. Martinelli, "A viscous multiblock flow solver for free-

surface calculations on complex geometries."

92. Y. Giga, K. Inui, A. Mahalov, and S. y. Matsui, “Navier-Stokes equations in

a rotating frame in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with initial data nondecreasing at

infinity,” no. 2, pp. 321-364, 2006/05, 2006.

93. R. Codina, “Numerical Solution of the Incompressible Navier–Stokes

Equations with Coriolis Forces Based on the Discretization of the Total Time

Derivative,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 148, no. 2, pp. 467-496,

1999/01/20, 1999.

94. V. Kleshnev, “Blade propulsive efficiency; Hydro-lift and drag forces on the

blade.,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 7, no. 81, 2007.

95. V. Kleshnev, “Points of force application to the oar and efficiency of various

blade designs,” www.biorow.com/Papers_files/, 2003.

96. E. Meier, "The wood database," View, 2013.

97. A. Smith, S. J. Wilkinson, and W. N. Reynolds, “The elastic constants of

some epoxy resins,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 547-550,

1974.

98. Ibtihal-Al-Namie, “Study the Mechanical Properties of Epoxy Resin

Reinforced With silica (quartz) and Alumina Particles,” The Iraqi Journal

For Mechanical And Material Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, 2011.

99. H. Rahmani, S. H. Mahmoudi, and A. Ashori, “Mechanical performance of

epoxy/carbon fiber laminated composites,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics

and Composites, pp. 0731684413518255, 2014.

144

100. V. Micro-Measurements, “The three-wire quarter-bridge circuit,” Application

note TT, vol. 612, pp. 221-223, 2010.

101. V. Kleshnev, “Boat acceleration, temporal structure of the stroke cycle, and

effectiveness in rowing,” Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, vol. 224,

no. 1, pp. 63-74, 2010.

102. C. Y. Piaw, "Mastering Research Statistics," Shah Alam, Malaysia: Mc Graw

Hill Education, 2013.

103. M. Wunderlich, T. Rüther, D. Essfeld, T. C. Erren, C. Piekarski, and D. Leyk,

“A new approach to assess movements and isometric postures of spine and

trunk at the workplace,” European Spine Journal, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1393-

1402, 2011.

104. L. Machado, J. Ribeiro, L. Costa, A. Silva, A. Rouboa, N. Mantripragada, D.

Marinho, R. Fernandes, and J. Paulo, "The effect of depth on the drag force

during underwater gliding: a CFD approach."

105. J. F. a. M. Peri´, Computational methods for fluid dynamics: Berlin: Springer,

2002.

106. G. Houzeaux, B. Eguzkitza, R. Aubry, H. Owen, and M. Vázquez, “A

Chimera method for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations,”

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol. 75, no. 3, pp.

155-183, 2014.

107. S. Binning, and C. Fulton, “Non‐lethal measurement of pectoral fin aspect

ratio in coral‐reef fishes,” Journal of fish biology, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 812-818,

2011.

108. A. C. DeVoria, and M. J. Ringuette, “Vortex formation and saturation for

low-aspect-ratio rotating flat-plate fins,” Experiments in Fluids, vol. 52, no.

2, pp. 441-462, 2012.

109. M.-C. Hsu, and Y. Bazilevs, “Fluid–structure interaction modeling of wind

turbines: simulating the full machine,” Computational Mechanics, vol. 50,

no. 6, pp. 821-833, 2012.

110. M. Beddhu, L. K. Taylor, and D. L. Whitfield, “Strong conservative form of

the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations in a rotating frame with a

solution procedure,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 128, no. 2, pp.

427-437, 1996.

145

111. V. Kleshnev, Rowing Biomechanics: Biorower, 2006.

112. M. J. Marfell-Jones, A. Stewart, and J. de Ridder, International standards for

anthropometric assessment, 2012.

113. A. Russell, P. L. Rossignol, and W. Sparrow, “Prediction of elite schoolboy

2000-m rowing ergometer performance from metabolic, anthropometric and

strength variables,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 749-754,

1998.

114. C. Balsalobre-Fernández, C. M. Tejero-González, J. del Campo-Vecino, and

N. Bavaresco, “The concurrent validity and reliability of a low-cost, high-

speed camera-based method for measuring the flight time of vertical jumps,”

The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 528-

533, 2014.

115. J. Charmant, "Kinovea Version 0.8. 15," 2012.

116. H. Galbraith, J. Scurr, C. Hencken, L. Wood, and P. Graham-Smith,

“Biomechanical comparison of the track start and the modified one-handed

track start in competitive swimming: an intervention study,” Journal of

applied biomechanics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 307-315, 2008.

117. A. Hohmann, U. Fehr, R. Kirsten, and T. Krüger, “Biomechanical analysis of

the backstroke start technique in swimming,” E-Journal Bewegung und

Training, vol. 2, pp. 28-33, 2008.

118. M. L. Novais, A. J. Silva, V. R. Mantha, R. J. Ramos, A. I. Rouboa, J. P.

Vilas-Boas, S. R. Luís, and D. A. Marinho, “The Effect of Depth on Drag

During the Streamlined Glide: A Three-Dimensional CFD Analysis,” Journal

of Human Kinetics, vol. 33, pp. 55-62, 2012.

119. M. N. Macrossan, and N. W. Macrossan, Energy efficiency of the rowing oar

from catch to square-off, 2008.

120. V. Kleshnev, “Oar inertia forces,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol.

170, 2015.

121. A. M. Wing, and C. Woodburn, “The coordination and consistency of rowers

in a racing eight,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 187-197,

1995.

122. M. Kaya, et al, "Motion analysis of optimal rowing form by using

biomechanical model." pp. 1281-1282.

123. F. M. White, "Fluid Mechanics,(2003)," McGraw-Hill, 2003.

146

124. R. Harbig, J. Sheridan, and M. Thompson, “The role of advance ratio and

aspect ratio in determining leading-edge vortex stability for flapping flight,”

Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 751, pp. 71-105, 2014.

125. N. Phillips, K. Knowles, and R. J. Bomphrey, “The effect of aspect ratio on

the leading-edge vortex over an insect-like flapping wing,” Bioinspiration &

biomimetics, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 056020, 2015.

126. K. Hord, and Y. Lian, “Leading Edge Vortex Circulation Development on

Finite Aspect Ratio Pitch-Up Wings,” AIAA Journal, pp. 2755-2767, 2016.

127. M.-H. Chung, “Numerical study of rowing hydrofoil performance at low

Reynolds numbers,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 313-

335, 2008.

128. A. H. Day, I. Campbell, D. Clelland, and J. Cichowicz, “An experimental

study of unsteady hydrodynamics of a single scull,” Proceedings of the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the

Maritime Environment, vol. 225, no. 3, pp. 282-294, August 1, 2011, 2011.

129. V. Kleshnev, “Estimation of biomechanical parameters and propulsive

efficiency of rowing,” Australian Institute of Sport, 1998.

130. J. V. Akwa, H. A. Vielmo, and A. P. Petry, “A review on the performance of

Savonius wind turbines,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol.

16, no. 5, pp. 3054-3064, 2012.

131. M. R. Ahmed, M. Faizal, and Y.-H. Lee, “Optimization of blade curvature

and inter-rotor spacing of Savonius rotors for maximum wave energy

extraction,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 65, pp. 32-38, 2013.

132. M. Anbarsooz, “Aerodynamic performance of helical Savonius wind rotors

with 30° and 45° twist angles: Experimental and numerical studies,”

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of

Power and Energy, pp. 0957650916648828, 2016.

133. M. Sadraey, Aircraft Performance: Analysis: VDM Publishing, 2009.

134. S. Mansoorzadeh, and E. Javanmard, “An investigation of free surface effects

on drag and lift coefficients of an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV)

using computational and experimental fluid dynamics methods,” Journal of

Fluids and Structures, vol. 51, pp. 161-171, 2014.

147

135. A. D. Lyttle, B. Blanksby, B. Elliot, and D. G. Lloyd, “The effect of depth

and velocity on drag during the streamlined guide,” Journal of Swimming

Research, vol. 13, pp. 15-22, 1998.

136. A. L. Claessens, J. Bourgois, K. Van Aken, R. Van der Auwera, R.

Philippaerts, M. Thomis, J. Vrijens, R. Loos, and J. Lefevre, “Body

proportions of elite male junior rowers in relation to competition level,

rowing style and boat type,” Kineziologija, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 123-132, 2005.

137. P. Droghetti, K. Jensen, and T. Nilsen, “The total estimated metabolic cost of

rowing,” FISA coach, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-4, 1991.

138. C. D. Gayer, Physiological Discriminators of Rowing Performance in Male,

Club Rowers: Washington State University, 1993.

139. K. Tachibana, K. Yashiro, J. Miyazaki, Y. Ikegami, and M. Higuchi, “Muscle

cross-sectional areas and performance power of limbs and trunk in the rowing

motion,” Sports Biomechanics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 44-58, 2007.

140. H. Akima, Y. Kano, Y. Enomoto, M. Ishizu, M. Okada, Y. Oishi, S. Katsuta,

and S.-Y. Kuno, “Muscle function in 164 men and women aged 20-84 yr,”

Medicine and science in sports and exercise, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 220-226,

2001.

141. W. R. Frontera, V. A. Hughes, R. A. Fielding, M. A. Fiatarone, W. J. Evans,

and R. Roubenoff, “Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-yr longitudinal study,”

Journal of applied physiology, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 1321-1326, 2000.

142. H. Kanehisa, S. Ikegawa, and T. Fukunaga, “Comparison of muscle cross-

sectional area and strength between untrained women and men,” European

journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp.

148-154, 1994.

143. T. J. Overend, D. A. Cunningham, J. F. Kramer, M. S. Lefcoe, and D. H.

Paterson, “Knee extensor and knee flexor strength: cross-sectional area ratios

in young and elderly men,” Journal of gerontology, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. M204-

M210, 1992.

144. R. J. Rodriguez, R. P. Rogriguez, S. Cook, and P. Sandborn,

“Electromyographic analysis of rowing stroke biomechanics,” The Journal of

sports medicine and physical fitness, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 103-108, 1990.

148

145. J.-M. J. Wilson, D. G. E. Robertson, and J. P. Stothart, “Analysis of lower

limb muscle function in ergometer rowing,” International Journal of Sport


146. B. Blanksby, L. Nicholson, and B. Elliott, “Swimming: Biomechanical

analysis of the grab, track and handle swimming starts: an intervention

study,” Sports Biomechanics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11-24, 2002.

147. M. Cosgrove, J. Wilson, D. Watt, and S. Grant, “The relationship between

selected physiological variables of rowers and rowing performance as

determined by a 2000 m ergometer test,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 17,

no. 11, pp. 845-852, 1999.

148. C.-J. Huang, T. W. Nesser, and J. E. Edwards, “Strength and power

determinants of rowing performance,” J Exerc Physiol Online, vol. 10, no. 4,

pp. 43-50, 2007.

149. N. H. Secher, “The physiology of rowing,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 1,

no. 1, pp. 23-53, 1983.

150. F. C. Hagerman, “Applied physiology of rowing,” Sports medicine, vol. 1,

no. 4, pp. 303-326, 1984.

151. R. M. A. El-Raheem, R. M. Kamel, and M. F. Ali, “Reliability of using

Kinovea program in measuring dominant wrist joint range of motion,” Trends

in Applied Sciences Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 224, 2015.

152. C. Pollock, I. Jones, T. Jenkyn, T. Ivanova, and S. Garland, “Changes in

kinematics and trunk electromyography during a 2000 m race simulation in

elite female rowers,” Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports,

vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 478-487, 2012.

153. M. J. Hofmijster, A. Van Soest, and J. J. De Koning, “Rowing skill affects

power loss on a modified rowing ergometer,” Medicine and science in sports

and exercise, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1101, 2008.

154. H. Takagi, S. Sugimoto, N. Nishijima, and B. Wilson, “Swimming:

Differences in stroke phases, arm‐leg coordination and velocity fluctuation

due to event, gender and performance level in breaststroke,” Sports


155. K. Thompson, R. Haljand, and D. MacLaren, “An analysis of selected

kinematic variables in national and elite male and female 100-m and 200-m

149

breaststroke swimmers,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 421-

431, 2000.

156. A. Von Loebbecke, and R. Mittal, “Comparative analysis of thrust production

for distinct arm-pull styles in competitive swimming,” Journal of

biomechanical engineering, vol. 134, no. 7, pp. 074501, 2012.

rowing propulsive mechanism based on rower...

Documents